Talk This Way: The Ubiquitous Presidency and Expectations of Presidential Communication

Performance Standards

Performance-based expectations are the job-related activities the president must accomplish. Although the U.S. Constitution gives the president only a few explicit powers, citizens have nonetheless come to view the office as a powerful force for general action—particularly with regard to foreign policy (Buchanan, 1987; Simon, 2009). Prototypical presidential leadership oversees economic growth, establishes international relationships, and appoints able advisors (Kinder et al., 1980). Historic survey data have offered confirmation that citizens expect every president to manage a broad mix of issues. For example, citizens of Elmira, New York, responded during the 1948 election that they believed the president “should be able to handle” domestic and international concerns (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954, pp. 186-187). In other research conducted across the 1976 and 1980 elections, individuals said judgment and nonpolitical actions were important (Herzik & Dodson, 1982). It seems likely that these perceptions of presidential performance are contingent on how the chief executive, in addition to other elite and nonelite agents, communicate about these actions.

Image Standards

Image-based expectations concern the personal traits a president uses in carrying out the duties of office (Simon, 2009). These characteristics may be physical, psychological, or emotional. For instance, respondents who watched the 1960 Kennedy–Nixon presidential debates rated the ideal president as wise, experienced, strong, calm, and middle-aged (Tannenbaum, Greenberg, & Silverman, 1977). Kinder et al. (1980) found in their surveys that citizens look for honesty, intelligence, and flexibility in the ideal president. Buchanan (1987) identifies integrity, charisma, and goodwill as standards. These image-based assessments are relevant to the present research, as these standards complement communicative notions of source credibility as well, including the intelligence, trust, and goodwill ascribed to a communicator (see McCroskey & Young, 1981).

Communication Standards

Whereas performance and image standards are well established in the literature, communication standards are decidedly less so. Still, some insights can be gleaned from extant work. Routine communicative interactions, including the scenarios and roles adopted, carry expectations (Berlo, 1960). Accordingly, communication scholars have studied the expectations, or defined rules, inherent in interpersonal communication (Cappella & Greene, 1982; see, in addition, Burgoon, 1993) as well as the communicative responses when interaction expectations are violated (Burgoon & Walther, 1990). Moreover, media effects theorists have elucidated how individuals come to form expectations of media technologies and the subsequent value derived (e.g., information or entertainment attainment; Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1982; Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Through mass-mediated parasocial interactions (Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011; Horton & Wohl, 1956), the public develop expectations of the president’s communication style. Violations of these mediated communication expectations are sometimes studied under the label of “image gaffes” (Grabe & Bucy, 2009, p. 70). For instance, individuals view negative, low-intensity reactions more favorably than positive, high-intensity reactions (Bucy & Newhagen, 1999). In a follow-up to this research, Bucy (2000) concludes that appropriate presidential displays lead to beliefs that the president is more honest. These works provide evidence of the communicative expectancies individuals hold for the president.

From a historical perspective, we should anticipate that public expectations of presidential communication formed in conjunction with the development of a more public rhetorical presidency at the beginning of the 20th century (Ceaser et al., 1981; Tulis, 1996) and the rise of the permanent political campaign. Franklin Roosevelt’s use of radio for fireside chats during the Great Depression or Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” moment in Berlin, Germany, or the presidential primetime address from the Oval Office underscore the frequency of and settings for these traditional communications. Indeed, the public became so familiar with presidential communication that Hart (1987) remarked these rhetorical practices became akin to official governance. The communication accompanying presidential campaigns, including political debates, convention speeches, and rallies, also serves to affirm expectations of candidate and presidential communication (Scacco & Coe, in press). In one of the few studies that includes measures of how presidential candidates should communicate, Trent, Short-Thompson, Mongeau, and Metzler (2013) find that prospective voters value candidates who “talk” about the American nation’s problems.

However, the presidency over the past several decades has transitioned from a rhetorical presidency to a ubiquitous presidency, the latter characterized by frequent communication in a variety of (non)traditional settings (see Scacco & Coe, 2016). This shift has hinged on three elements. First, presidents have prioritized specific forms of accessibility, such as employing interactive media and appearing in comedic and pop culture venues. Second, the presidency has become more personal, prioritizing disclosive and less formal forms of communication. Finally, the presidency must now increasingly engage in a more pluralistic nation and world, making targeted messages (of praise or attack, depending on the speaker and the context) the new normal. These changes may alter what individuals expect of the frequency, venue adaptation, and general appropriateness of the chief executive’s communicative style.

A high-choice media environment encourages active audience attention to political information, a development that while leading to audience declines for some presidential addresses (Baum & Kernell, 2009) may also encourage heightened attention to changes in presidential communicative behavior. In the digital age, individuals seek out political information to meet informational and entertainment-based needs, as well as seek guidance in learning about issues and political candidates (Kaye & Johnson, 2002). The hybridity of audiovisual and print modalities online may encourage some individuals to seek out political content with an infotainment tinge (Baum, 2003; Chadwick, 2013; Diddi & LaRose, 2006). How individuals make sense of presidential communication that, while traditionally wedded to norms of rhetorical formality and executive expectations, is evolving to meet the demands of technologies, audiences, and culture may reflect this hybridity. This thinking leads us to pose two research questions:

Participants

As part of field research investigating attitudes and beliefs about the 2016 presidential election and the future president’s communication style, we recruited prospective Iowa Caucus goers attending campaign rallies in the lead up to the caucuses in late January 2016. These rallies were for Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as well as Republican presidential candidates Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio. Sites were selected to balance candidate gender dynamics across parties as well as relative polling position prior to the caucuses. As the first official contest in the presidential nominating system, the Iowa Caucuses and associated campaign events draw a small but politically engaged set of voters—a sample appropriate for a baseline, qualitative assessment of expectations related to presidential communication. Respondents had to be at least 18 years old and a citizen of the United States. In total, 80 individuals completed the field surveys. The sample was evenly split by gender (49.4% identified as female), skewed younger (44% were 18-29 years of age; 34.7% were 50-64 years of age), more Democratic (58.4% compared with 27.3% who identified as Republican), liberal (53.9% compared with 25% who identified as conservative), and well educated (55.8% reported a 4-year college degree or a higher degree, 31.2% a high school degree or some college). The racial and ethnic makeup of the sample was relatively homogenous (mirroring the eventual voter makeup of the Iowa Caucuses ² ) with 1.3% identifying as Hispanic, 2.6% as Black or African American, and 6.5% as Asian.

Data Collection

Respondents answered three sets of questions regarding the venues where the president communicates, the acceptable frequency of presidential communication, and their chosen candidate’s communication style.

Individuals first rank ordered the venues “where [they] would most enjoy encountering the President of the United States communicating to the American public from 1 (most enjoyable) to 6 (least enjoyable).” The venues included three traditional places for presidential communication (i.e., Oval Office in the White House, an interview on a television news network, and a press conference) and three contemporary venues (i.e., Saturday Night Live [SNL], a social networking platform like Facebook or Twitter or Snapchat, and a life and leisure magazine such as Sports Illustrated or Vanity Fair). Once respondents ranked their preferences, they then responded to an open-ended question asking why they had made their particular ranking decisions.

The next set of questions assessed the acceptable frequency of presidential communication. Individuals first answered whether the next president should communicate to the public less than, about the same amount, or more than the current president (M = 2.61, SD = 0.49). This question was followed by an open-ended question that allowed individuals to explain why they believed “the next President of the United States should communicate with the frequency just answered.”

The third question pertinent to the present study asked individuals about their chosen presidential candidate’s communication style. Individuals qualitatively described the types of communications that make “the current presidential candidate you support or are leaning toward supporting in the caucus” relatable. This question was followed by a set of questions to capture standard demographic (gender, education, age, ethnicity, and race) and political (partisanship and ideology) characteristics.

Data Analysis

Using the ubiquitous presidency as the conceptual framework, we deductively analyzed the open-ended data for each field survey question with a form of emergent category designation (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). This qualitative approach is iterative in that the researcher moves between latent theory and data to form categories. The ubiquitous presidency’s main operational components—accessibility, personality, and pluralism (Scacco & Coe, 2016)—served as the sensitizing concepts that oriented the analysis of participant responses (Patton, 2015). The authors separately grouped responses using the operational components of the ubiquitous presidency and then collaboratively discussed the fit of cases. We then assigned category labels based on common language usage. We were cognizant that responses also may incorporate performance and image-based expectations observed in the prior literature. These convergences are noted and outlined in the results section. To supplement this qualitative analysis, we also include descriptive and inferential statistics to illustrate the directionality of responses and potential differences across demographic categories.

Frequency of Presidential Communication

Our first research question asked to what extent individuals assented to a central tenet of the ubiquitous presidency: The president should communicate with the public frequently. A clear majority of respondents (62%) wanted to see an increase in presidential communication during the next administration. The remaining individuals (38%) saw the current amount of executive communication as appropriate for the next president as well. Strikingly, not a single respondent indicated a desire to see less communication from the next president, suggesting just how strongly the norms of the ubiquitous presidency may be embedded in the public imagination. Our results indicate no significant differences in preferences for the frequency of presidential communication among respondents by age, gender, or education. However, partisanship was a marginally significant factor (t[70] = −1.90, p = .06) such that Republicans and Independents wanted to see more communication from the next president (M = 2.74, SD = 0.44) compared with Democrats (M = 2.53, SD = 0.50). This difference might be due to a more general dissatisfaction with then-President Barack Obama among these groups, in which they hoped to see a very different future presidency—in terms of communication and policy. More generally, although we note the challenge of generating enough statistical power to isolate significant results among the smaller sample necessitated by our field research approach, the results appear to illustrate just how widely accepted it is among Iowa Caucus rally goers that presidents should communicate frequently. Indeed, it does seem reasonable that this group would see value in such communication, even across demographic lines. As evidenced by their attendance at a campaign rally, these individuals have some general interest in politics that may heighten their desire for political information, including that which comes directly from the president.

Examining respondents’ open-ended responses provides further insight into the value they saw in frequent presidential communication. In general, respondents saw public discourse as necessary for an informed and included citizenry, as well as for transparent government. In terms of informing the public, respondents spoke of more presidential communication as necessary “to let the people know what’s going on,” “to let the people know what’s happening,” and “because the American people need to be aware.” ³ “Information,” one individual noted, “is the key to understanding,” while another remarked that “The more communication with the people, the more people know.” The arguments for presidential communication as a means of information and education were born during the height of the progressive era, more than a century prior to the 2016 Iowa Caucus. Indeed, President Woodrow Wilson’s rhetorical posture later adopted by subsequent presidents stemmed from a desire to nurture public opinion via public appeals (Ceaser et al., 1981). Clearly, these messages continue to infuse public desires for a greater quantity of presidential communication.

Individuals also saw White House communication as a mechanism for inclusion of citizens—as a means of connecting the people to the political sphere. From an emotional perspective, respondents appreciated how presidential communication can “make people more positive about and interested in the politics that affect them” as well as provide reassurance that “things are under control.” For the caucus campaign participants who identified how executive communication can “connect with the people,” they noted the relational elements of discourse to “get people more involved” and reach “too many disenfranchised Americans.” The presence of language illustrating a seemingly interpersonal-like connection between governors and the governed, although bearing the watermarks of the intimacy created by mass media technologies (Hart, 1999; Horton & Wohl, 1956; Jamieson, 1988), also is at the root of the accessibility and personality necessary for the ubiquitous presidency (Scacco & Coe, 2016). For presidents to be ubiquitous forces in a crowded media ecosystem, their various forms of communication must create and sustain the emotional connections necessary for continued relevance.

Beyond informing and including citizens, respondents also viewed presidential communication as an important vehicle for ensuring the government was accountable to the people. Here, “transparency” was the key. That word appeared several times, as did other expressions of this concept such as “explain their actions,” “enhance trust,” and “keep from being a closet president.” The general idea seemed to be, as one respondent put it, that “Honest communication is necessary so the people know why he’s doing what he’s doing.” This desire for transparency through public communication can be better understood in terms of two sociopolitical patterns. First, credibility and trust have long been viewed as important indicators of presidential image ideals (see Kinder et al., 1980; Trent et al., 2013). Presidents create a crafted and mediated “looking glass” (Lang & Lang, 1983) to convey these traits. Second, the erosion of institutional trust in government over the course of five decades (Bennett, 1998) leaves individuals increasingly looking for symbolic representations of governing guarantees. Frequent communications are thus equated with transparency and trust, even if those things do not necessarily align in practice.

Notably, however, there was an undercurrent in some responses indicating that too much communication might be counterproductive (recall that 38% of respondents wanted the frequency of presidential to stay at the present level). One individual explained that “Transparency is important, but excessive transparency leads to more people ignoring the President.” Another individual thought complete transparency was unwise (“A president should not tell all his plans”) while conceding that “You shouldn’t communicate less so the people don’t trust you.” These participants wanted “to know the president is doing more than just showing up on TV all the time.” This, of course, is the tension present in an era of presidential ubiquity. When the president is everywhere—including, increasingly, in venues that have little to do with politics—some in the public might have the sense that there is more important work to be done. Yet not a single respondent called for the next president to decrease the frequency of communication from the Obama standard. To the extent that some people might see a tension in presidential communication and other presidential tasks, they apparently think it is a manageable one within current communicative norms.

Venues for Presidential Communication

Our second research question assessed the expectations respondents held about where the president communicates. A critical component of ubiquitous communication is that a president’s nearly constant presence infuses “political and nonpolitical arenas of American life via engagement in a fragmented media environment” (Scacco & Coe, 2016, p. 2015). When asked to rank the venues where individuals would enjoy encountering presidential communication, a clear tension emerged among respondents who wanted a seemingly regal president and those who longed for someone just like them. This ordinary–exceptional tension, although commonly discussed with regard to the actions and traits of presidents (Medvic, 2013), illustrates the opportunities and challenges confronting executive efforts to shift toward a more ubiquitous communication style. The accessibility and personality that characterize ubiquitous communications allow the president to adapt to different communicative settings while identifying with a diverse set of audiences (Scacco & Coe, 2016).

A clear preference existed among prospective Iowa Caucus goers to see the president communicate in more traditional venues (see Figure 1)—venues, such as the Oval Office or in interviews, that call to mind the ceremonial, stately side of the presidency. Forty-six percent of respondents ranked the Oval Office as the preferred place for a presidential speech, while 20% wanted to encounter presidential communication in an interview and another 14% in a press conference. In the open-ended responses, traditional settings evoked notions of presidentialness, as one individual aptly explained: “Some places are not presidential or [able to] reach everyone.” Respondents explicitly saw the Oval Office setting as the “most respectful” and “formal” venue, conveying the “dignity of office.” Such a venue, one person noted, was appropriate because the president “should act like a chief of state.” Indeed, these associations of the president with a formal setting were regularly wedded to credibility and executive power. For one individual, the Oval Office is simply “more credible” than other venues. Another individual remarked that the “president should be centered in [the] seat of [official] power.” This language of centrality, power, credibility, and dignity attached to a communicative venue contains the echoes of action and image expectations identified in previous research (see Simon, 2009).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Ranked preferences for presidential communicative venue.

Notions of the dignified presidency overlapped with beliefs about which venue was most suitable, professional, and/or challenging for the president’s “work environment.” Viewing the president as employee, a respondent noted “president = serious job; should communicate in serious publications/media outlets.” The Oval Office, in this regard, communicated the “professionalism [and] seriousness of [the] office.” Some individuals who identified interviews or press conferences as preferred venues for presidential communication similarly saw the difficulties of the job as important for steeling leadership. One person wanted the president “to be challenged,” while another observed: “I don’t need to hear speeches or canned (scripted) deliveries, I would prefer the questions and answers in the form of a conference or interview.” These respondents with a preference for more traditional, interactive venues (i.e., press conferences or interviews) also valued the possibility of the president being “closer to the people and more accessible dealing with issues . . . ,” while also forcing the speaker “to respond directly to constituents.” This drive for communicative accessibility, important for the ubiquitous presidency, is a goal of contemporary presidents and seems to be valued even among some individuals who prefer more established formats.

Notably, respondents sometimes drew a direct contrast between the traditional communicative venues that reflect “the gravity and seriousness of the office” and newer platforms, disapproving of the comedic or lighter aspects of the newer forms. A majority, 51%, ranked a venue like SNL last or next to last in preference. For example, one individual felt that presidential communication needed to be “official, not a joke,” and another said “I’m most interested in places where [the] president is down to business.” Other survey participants were more explicit in their comparisons between the old and the new. “I think SNL (and social media) trivialize the office of the Presidency,” noted one, while another said simply “[the] Oval Office is way more legit than SNL.” Apparently aware of how such views might recall an older era, one respondent sought “respect for [the] office and how it looks to [the] public in the responsibility it has. I am traditional in that respect.” Other rally goers sought to break such tradition. Greater than a fifth of individuals preferred to encounter the president communicating to the public via SNL or a social networking platform. A standard-bearer for American political satire since the 1970s, SNL’s venue provides access to a different side of political leaders according to respondents. These “soft news” formats first became popular with presidential candidates in the 1992 election (Davis & Owen, 1998), but it was not until the Obama presidency where a sitting chief executive appeared in these venues. Softer news venues, popular culture magazines like Vanity Fair or GQ, and social networking platforms afford a degree of insulation for presidential messaging while allowing the White House to reach nonpolitical audiences.

Importantly, individuals saw presidential communication in these less traditional outlets as not just about entertainment or displaying “a sense of humor,” but that these characteristics led to a more ordinary and authentic version of the president compared with venues that are more traditional. In other words, these platforms afford the public a glimpse of components of presidential personality—informality and disclosure—necessary for a ubiquitous public persona (Scacco & Coe, 2016). The words “relatable,” “human,” “real,” and “genuine” used by respondents frame how these contemporary platforms reflect presidential humanity—the ordinariness many expect. For example, one person noted that SNL (as well as social networking platforms) would be “more likely to showcase the actual personality of the president.” Other respondents expressed that they liked “seeing the personal side of the president,” and that they appreciated venues that allowed presidents and candidates “to be less serious/more approachable.”

Personality is not an end in itself without an accompanying accessibility. Individuals tied relatability to approachability, seeking to break down the symbolic power barrier between presidents and the populous. This demarcation kept early American presidents from communicating directly to the public, became tenuous in the rhetorical age of mass media (Ceaser et al., 1981; Hart, 1999), and has seemingly all but disappeared as the ubiquitous presidency has prioritized accessibility (Scacco & Coe, 2016). As opposed to the public approaching the president on the president’s terms, respondents wanted the president to “[reach] out to where the American people live and talk.” As one individual explained, “I feel that the president should be diverse in communication with the people, and that includes being down to earth by appearing in comedy environments.” Of social networking platforms in particular, one respondent felt strongly that both presidents and the public were more themselves in such forums: These were venues where the president would be “see[n] as a REAL person, appearing in places where we real people are!”

In some respects, a desire for accessibility provides a point of unity for those individuals who preferred older venues and those who preferred new. For the former, traditional venues afford the opportunity to be stately and “reach more individuals” on serious matters. The appeal here is practicality: the ability to “reach everyone” and “bring policy to the masses,” as two rally goers noted. For individuals preferring newer venues, accessibility was about a communicative experience that is more individualized and intimate. People felt that these more diverse formats “[make] you feel connected to” the president in a way that was not possible in other forums.